Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Perceptions of University Assessment and Feedback Among Post-16 School Pupils
aJones, Harriet LJ*, aYeoman, Kay, aGaskell, Emma, bPrendergast, John R
aSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich,
NR4 7TJ
tel 01603 456161
e-mails: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
bJRP Information Services, Lymington, Hants, SO41 0ZP e-mail:
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
This work was supported by the Higher Education Academy through a grant awarded in
2005.
Abstract
The transition between school and university can be problematic for students. Understanding
students’ expectations about the system they are entering into is crucial in effecting a smooth
transition. The school system involves small classes, often with teachers who know their
students well. In contrast university involves large class sizes and a degree of anonymity for
the student. In the UK National Student Survey responses for universities show that students
are generally less happy about feedback relative to most other issues. The current study
investigates school students’ expectations about assessment and feedback practices at
university. Students were surveyed across Great Britain in 2006 and 2013. There were some
significantly different responses from students between the two years of study in how
coursework would be handled, but there were also many areas of consistency, demonstrating
a clear pattern of expectation. For example, in both years of study 80 % of students expected
personal verbal feedback on their university assignments. This study discusses how student
expectations may be based on their school experiences rather than considering the reality of
the university system they are entering into. Misconceptions may be affecting students’
responses to the NSS surveys on assessment and feedback.
Key Words: feedback, assessment, perceptions, transition
3
Introduction
The school to university transition is recognised as a challenging and unsettling period
fraught with potential difficulties (Slaughter and Bates 2009). Consequently, adjustment to
university life, student satisfaction and successful completion of the first year in particular is
far from certain (Cook and Leckey 1999). A relationship between student perceptions,
approach to study and academic outcome has been described (Bedford and O'Brien 2012).
Adjustment, engagement and retention can be negatively influenced by unrealistic student
expectations (Baxter and Hatt 2000), highlighting a need for greater understanding between
students and faculty at the beginning of an academic programme (Byrne and Flood 2005).
During the past two decades, the UK higher education sector has had to respond to a
large number of externally driven government-led changes (Dearden, Fitzsimons, and
Wyness 2011). This has not only encouraged wider access and greater participation in higher
education (Crabtree, Roberts and Tyler 2007) with a wider array of student educational
experiences (Wingate 2007), but has also driven a potential shift towards a commercial
setting (Wilkins, Shams and Huisman 2013) in which the students are the customers and the
university is the service provider (Sander et al. 2000). Institutions keen to raise their
reputation within a highly competitive market may opt to do so by improving student
retention rates through the targeting of misalignment between students’ academic and social
expectations and their first-year experiences (Crisp et al. 2009). Ultimately, students’
expectations need to be addressed in order to better match the reality of the university
experience or changes in approaches to student engagement must be made to better match the
students’ needs (Longden 2006).
Previous investigations have identified the importance of student expectations and
have shown that controlled management of the views of students from traditionally
disadvantaged groups can positively affect retention and performance (Steele 1992). With
potential for measurable improvements in student outcomes, discovering more about student
expectations and preferences for teaching styles they are likely to encounter could be
valuable information for higher education institutions (Sander et al. 2000). In the National
Student Survey (NSS) students in the UK have been notably less positive about assessment
and feedback on their assignments than about other aspects of their course experience
(Williams and Kane 2008). This knowledge may help direct the design of strategies aimed at
addressing student expectations and the possible evolution of programmes that have
improved efficacy and are well received (Stevenson and Sander 1998).
There is growing global scholarly concern that students are inadequately prepared for
university courses (Trotter and Roberts 2006) and it has been suggested that this has
contributed to declining university standards and high failure rates (EMBO 2006) (European
Molecular Biology Organisation). Throughout their school careers, students are tutored,
assessed and receive instruction within a carefully controlled environment in which the
requirements of syllabuses and limits of desired knowledge are well defined (Surgenor 2013).
This is in contrast to the system within higher education (Jessen and Elander 2009). Such a
shift is commonly associated with a lack of preparedness for autonomous active learning. It
is suggested that students are failing to make the crucial transition between school and
university either quickly or effectively (Lowe and Cook 2003). Worries about inexperience of
independent learning and unrealistic expectations concerning university education have also
been expressed by students themselves (Leese 2010).
Over the last few decades there has been a widely-reported decline in the academic
abilities with which students are entering university and this may well be attributable to
changes in the structure and demands of the modern A-level course (Fee, Greenan and Wall
2009). There is a belief amongst many UK education commentators that students’ responses
5
in exams have become formulaic and reliant on rote learning (Daly et al. 2012). School
education is no longer designed as a preparation for university (Browning and Sheffield,
2008), with a focus on exam performance at the expense of learning how to gather
information and develop critical evaluation skills (Julien and Barber 2009). Slaughter and
Bates (2009) showed a decline in students’ levels of expert-like thinking in a range of
categories, including problem solving, personal interest and real world connections, whilst
previous studies of new undergraduates concluded that students failed to adapt learning
strategies for the higher cognitive demands of higher education (Broekkamp and Van Hout-
Wolter 2007).
The former Labour government introduced a number of policies seeking to tackle
these issues in the Education and Skills White Paper (Department for Education and Skills
[DfES] 2005). This led to the introduction, in 2008, of the Extended Project Qualification (or
EPQ, a project-based qualification for sixth form students which involves researching and
addressing a research question) and the ‘stretch and challenge’ approach designed to add
depth and breadth to the curriculum and academically push the most capable students. A
more recent white paper (Department for Education 2010) stated a desire to explore how A-
levels can provide deep synoptic learning while actively comparing the performance of UK
pupils against international benchmarks (Daly et al. 2012). However, fears remain that the
growing pressure to get students into university may be encouraging school teachers to alter
the way in which they offer guidance, thus enhancing students’ misperceptions of tuition in
higher education (Brinkworth et al. 2009). There has since followed a reformation of many
A-level courses with the intention of making them a better preparation for higher education.
This has been done in part by including universities in the design of content. There has also
been a drive towards formal examinations at the expense of coursework assessments in many
of the subject areas (Wilson, Child and Suto 2016).
Research into student retention attributes lower levels of university completion and
higher levels of first year withdrawals to a lack of ‘academic preparedness’ (Yorke and
Thomas 2003). It has been argued that, whilst a student’s school achievement is a positive
(yet weak) predictor of their university achievement (Lizzio, Wilson and Simons (2002),
perceptions of university learning environments make a clear contribution to academic
outcomes above the prior academic success of a student (Kreber 2003). A successful
transition depends on the ability to make a rapid adjustment to a learning environment that
requires greater autonomy and individual responsibility than students typically expect upon
commencement (Brinkworth et al. 2009).
Although there have been many investigations into the experience of first year
undergraduates, few studies have focused on the expectations of students prior to
commencing their university studies (Miller, Bender and Schuh 2005).The current study
explores the perceptions of assessment and feedback at university among students across
Great Britain in the last two years of their school education. The study of schools in 2006 was
funded by an HEA (Higher Education Academy) award leading to a report for the HEA
(Jones et al. 2009). The current study extends this work by looking at the results from 2006 in
relation to the same questions to students in 2013. While looking at perceptions of
assessment and feedback, the study is also looking at changes between the 2006 and 2013
cohorts.
Methods
The methodology was questionnaire-based, with guided discussions held to assist in the
design of the final questionnaires. All questionnaires and guided discussions were passed by
the University of East Anglia (UEA) ethics committee in 2005.
7
A small-group structured interview was carried out with fifteen Year 12 students from
two state secondary schools in East Anglia. The pupils were studying at least one science
subject at A-level and were aiming to continue on to higher education. The interview covered
topics relating to how they were being taught at school and how they anticipated being taught
at university. Questions were open-ended, such as those used by Buswell and Matthews
(2004), to enable unanticipated topics to emerge. The results from this interview were used to
structure a pilot questionnaire, similar to the method used by Crook, Gross and Dymott
(2006). This questionnaire was taken to one of the two schools, where twelve Year 13
students, who were taking Biology A-level, were individually taken through the questionnaire
and their interpretation of each question was discussed with them. The questionnaire was
rewritten where appropriate and piloted at the second of the two schools, where it was given
to twelve Year 13 pupils as a group. They completed the questionnaire and then discussed it
as a group. Minor changes were made to the questionnaire following this process.
The responses of the students in the pilot helped design a questionnaire that was
circulated to participating schools in England, Scotland and Wales. There was a mixture of
state and independent schools in both years of study. School teachers managed the collection
of data, typically done at registration period. The completed questionnaires were returned to
the School of Biological Sciences at UEA.
The final questionnaire included several different styles of question: ‘yes’/’no’
answers; answers that used the Likert scale; and ranking statements in order of preference.
Some questions were modelled on those that ask specific questions with ‘strongly agree’ to
‘strongly disagree’ response options, such as those used by Gibbs & Simpson (2003). Some
key subjects were covered by several different question types to maximise their usefulness.
This questionnaire was distributed to 31 schools in 2006 and seven schools in 2013.
Schools were selected to represent a range of types of school (state and independent) and
geographical variation to include England, Scotland and Wales. They were recruited through
personal contacts of the authors of this study. The majority were state schools, but private
day schools and boarding schools were included. The only stipulation was that pupils must be
taking at least one science subject at A-level. The questionnaire was translated into Welsh for
the one Welsh-speaking school in the study, and adapted for those at schools in Scotland
taking Scottish Highers. The questionnaire was paper-based and either taken or posted to
specific identified teachers in each school. Arrangements were made for the completed
questionnaires to be either returned by post or collected by hand. Questionnaires which were
defaced or had suspiciously uniform answers were discarded from the analysis. The total
number of questionnaires used in this study were 641 from 2006 and 853 from 2013,
sampling approximately 0.1 % of the total sixth form population.
All data from the questionnaires were entered onto separate Microsoft Access
databases and then amalgamated onto a single Access database to allow comparisons of all
information so that responses could be compared across a range of different categories. For
all questionnaires, the number of responses to each question was recorded individually, so
that if one question was not answered, the questionnaire was still included for analysis for all
other questions. For example, this might be the case where students were asked about
sciences vs non-science subjects. If students had no experience of Arts subjects and left
relevant questions blank, the rest of their responses were included in the analysis. For
questions that involved the ranking of responses, only those questionnaires where the whole
question was completed as required were included in the analysis.
For the analysis of Likert scale data, the Chi squared test was used to identify a)
overall differences between the two years, for individual questions and b) differences
9
between responses for individual questions, for either separate or combined years, as
appropriate. To be deemed significant the p value had to be <0.05.
Results
Students were asked about the nature of the verbal feedback they were given at school and
what type of feedback they would expect when at university. When asked whether they
agreed with the statement relating to their future university assignments: I expect to have
some personal verbal feedback about how I have done in the assignment, 80.4 % totally
agreed or partially agreed with this statement. Similarly 70.0 % of students totally or
partially agreed that with the statement I expect to have some verbal feedback, given to the
whole class, about the assignment. At school, in science subjects, there was a difference
between the 2006 and 2013 cohorts with the 2006 cohort reporting receiving more verbal
feedback than the 2013 cohort (Figure 1) (Chi sqd = 49.94, d.f. =1, p<0.005).
In non-science subjects there was no difference between the two years in the
percentage of students getting verbal feedback at school (Chi sqd = 2.04, d.f. =1, NS). In non-
science subjects 90.5 % of students reported ‘sometimes’ ‘often’ or ‘always’ getting verbal
feedback at school (Figure 2). In science subjects this was slightly lower (78.9 %) (Figure
1).
Students were asked about their expectations of verbal feedback in a range of
scenarios at university (Table 1). Results were fairly consistent with over 50% of students
‘always’ or ‘often’ expecting all types of verbal feedback listed.
Students were asked about the use of material from the internet in assignments. While
almost all students, from both cohorts, partially or totally agreed with the statement At school,
when essays are marked, I would lose marks if I did not put material from the internet in my
own words, when asked whether they would lose marks if they did this, significantly more
students totally agreed in the 2006 cohort than the 2013 cohort (Figure 3) (Chi sqd = 48.59,
d.f. = 4, p<0.005).
Looking at students’ perceptions of how this would be handled at university, students
were asked to rank which errors would be most heavily penalised. In the 2006 cohort 52 % of
students ranked copying material directly from the internet into an essay first, whereas the
2013 cohort only 41 % ranked it first. In this later cohort more students (45.6%) ranked first
failing to directly answer the question/assignment title relative to the 2006 cohort (32.8%,
Chi sqd = 24.18, d.f. = 1, p< 0.005).
Data were gathered on students’ views on whether a draft of their assignment was
commented on at school before a final version was submitted. In non-science subjects there
was no difference in response percentages between the two cohorts, but when students were
asked At school, in science subjects, how often is a draft commented on before you hand in a
final version, from the 2006 cohort over 48.2% said ‘always’ or ‘often’ (very similar to the
percentage for non-science subjects) but in the 2013 cohort only 17.0% gave this response
(Figure 4) (Chi sqd = 158.73, d.f. = 1, p< 0.005).
However, when looking at perceptions of how work would be handled at university
there were no significant differences in responses between the two cohorts. Combining
results for both cohorts and where students were responding about practical reports and
essays, approximately 25 % of students partially or totally disagreed that they expected a
lecturer to read and correct a draft before a final version was submitted. In a similar question,
students were asked if at university, if an essay is set, how often do you expect a draft to be
commented on before you hand in a final version. In the 2006 cohort about 30 % said rarely
11
or never compared to 12 % in the 2013 cohort (Figure 5) (Both cohorts combined - Chi sqd =
36.96, d.f.=1, p<0.005)
Students were asked about how strictly deadlines were adhered to. There were no
significant differences between the cohorts and the greatest percentage answered ‘often’ for
school and ‘always’ for university (Figure 6). However, when the cohorts were combined
and the data for school and university were compared, it was at school where the greatest
adherence to deadlines was expected (Chi sqd = 159.64, d.f.=1, p<0.005). Differences were
seen between the two cohorts when asked whether they expected all assignments to be
assessed. There was less agreement in the 2006 cohort than the 2013 cohort (Figure 7).
Similarly, when asked about who marks the assignment, there was greater agreement that it
would be the person who set the work among the 2013 cohort than the 2006 cohort (Figure
8).
Students were asked to rank the type of feedback in the order that they would consider
it most valuable. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts. The highest
percentage of students ranked verbal feedback as the feedback most valuable to them and
least was corrections to spelling and grammar (Table 2).
Discussion
Differences were observed between the two cohorts of students questioned in this study. For
example, a greater proportion of the 2006 cohort reported receiving verbal feedback in
science subjects than the 2013 cohort (p<0.005). Similarly, a significantly greater number of
students in 2006 reported often or always getting feedback on a draft before submitting the
final version than in 2013 (p< 0.005). This appears to be reflecting changes in school practice
over the seven years between these two studies. A possible explanation for these differences
may be the changes made to the teaching and assessment of A-levels in accordance with the
government white papers (Department for Education and Skills, 2005; Department for
Education, 2010). Brown, Harris and Harnett (2012) studied schools in New Zealand but
compared their data to British assessment practices in schools. They reported a change to
more ‘in-the-moment interactions’ which could possibly account for less emphasis on
feedback to assignments observed in the 2013 cohort of this study They also suggested that,
as the emphasis on external measures has increased, the role of feedback in terms of learning
has decreased, while emphasis on grade achievement has increased.
The way that assessment and feedback is handled will vary both within and between
schools as well as between the two cohorts studied. The proportion of the total number of
sixth form students sampled in this study was relatively low (approximately 0.1 %), but the
sample size was large and standard errors small, so the mean values in the study can be taken
as representative of the population. Variation in the type of subjects students studied will
have affected their ability to answer some of the questions where, for example, students were
asked about practices in science or non-science subjects. When data was entered, some
students left some questions blank and it was taken that this was where students had no
experience to answer the question. This was never above 1 % of the sample size though.
A greater percentage of students in 2006 ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ expected a draft essay to
be commented on at university than the 2013 cohort (Chi sqd = 36.96, d.f.=1, p<0.005). So
the expectations of the 2013 were possibly less realistic than the 2006 cohort. This may be
influenced by the introduction of tuition fees and the possible effect this has had on student
expectations regarding the level of service they receive at university (Wilkins, Shams and
Huisman 2013). When carrying out the small group discussions with the 2006 cohort, to
design the questionnaires, it became apparent that students had not directly considered issues
13
such as feedback to coursework at university. Donnelly (2015) discusses hidden messages
within school teaching which might influence students’ thoughts on higher education. She
discusses this in relation to choice of Higher Education institution. Her reasoning may well
be relevant here in looking at school pupils’ perceptions of higher education. In school
students may be picking up messages about higher education practices, and this will also
relate to changing practices within their own schools. Any change in student expectations
may also relate to government amendments to school education policy (Ball 2013).
Plagiarism is an area of increasing concern in higher education (Owens and White
2013). Whilst students from both cohorts deemed copying material from the internet without
putting it into their own words to be unacceptable for school essays, when asked whether
they would lose marks if they did this, a significantly larger proportion of students totally
agreed in the 2006 cohort than the 2013 cohort. In the 2006 cohort, 52 % of students ranked
copying material directly from the internet into an essay as the error that they would be most
severely penalised for, whereas in the 2013 cohort only 41 % ranked it first. In this later
cohort more students (45.6%) ranked failing to directly answer the question/assignment title
first relative to the 2006 cohort (32.8%, Chi sqd = 24.18, d.f. = 1, p< 0.005). This indicates a
lack of awareness of the issues and repercussions of plagiarism in higher education, as
discussed by Lori (2009). The differences observed here may also be related to the rapid
development in technology, the accessibility of the internet as a highly valued and widely
accepted information source and the ease with which information can be copied and stored
(Owunwanne, Rustagi and Dada 2010).
There were no significant differences between the two cohorts when students were
asked to rank feedback type by order of importance. Mulliner and Tucker (2015) found that
students in their study preferred verbal to written feedback. Whereas, the present study
showed no preference between verbal and written comments in students’ first choice of
feedback, and when combining first and second choices, written feedback was rated higher
than verbal feedback. Corrections to spelling and grammar was given least priority. The rise
of the use of texting and other abbreviated language may have some baring on this lack of
value associated with feedback on spelling and grammar. The type of feedback valued by
students may be shaped by student habituation to a style of learning and assessment that
schools develop in order to meet the demands of the curriculum. Indeed, A-level teaching
continues to be the subject of much scrutiny with critics arguing that a change of emphasis
from seeking marks to developing suitable learning approaches would provide students with
a greater ability to analyse, think critically (Harris and Harris, 1995) and understand what is
expected of them when preparing assignments at university (Crook, Gross and Dymott 2006).
Large discrepancies have been documented between the expectations of students in
their first year of higher education and those of their tutors (Yorke and Longden 2008).
Mulliner and Tucker (2015) asked students about their perceptions of feedback and found
that they were expecting personal verbal feedback from teachers. This supports the present
study where 80 % of students were expecting personal verbal feedback from their lecturers.
It might seem unrealistic of these students but according to Mulliner and Tucker (2015)
perception from university staff is that students are offered personal feedback, the difference
being that students at university have to actively seek it. They found staff rated personal
feedback even higher than students but that workload of lecturers may be an important factor
in determining why students didn’t often get this personal verbal feedback. Yet, the
university system, with large numbers of students and the desire to treat everyone fairly,
generally offers little or no personal contact between the marker and the student during the
feedback process (Crook, Gross and Dymott 2006). At school students are in small groups in
a classroom with their teacher where they might receive personal verbal feedback, in contrast
to the university environment where students are rarely in this setting. The environment in
15
which feedback is offered may well be as important as the feedback itself. This further
highlights a need for rapid implementation of financially and logistically feasible strategies
that prepare and enable students to engage and integrate fully in their new environments
without the difficulties and confusion brought about by potentially unrealistic expectations.
Students regularly enter higher education with inaccurate preconceptions of what to
expect and what is expected of them from a teaching, learning and assessment perspective
(Surgenor 2013). This may be related to the nature of student educational histories and has
implications for pre-university preparation, undergraduate satisfaction and long-term
academic success (Brinkworth et al. 2009). Schools can give messages to their pupils about
what to expect at universities either intentionally or unintentionally. Donnelly (2015) studied
this in relation to choices students made about which Higher Education establishments to
apply for, and it could be considered equally relevant to what students expect the teaching
and learning environment to be like when they get there. Addressing the gap between
expectation and subsequent experience is associated with a positive effect on student
satisfaction and retention (Long, Ferrier and Heagney 2006).
With a greater variety of students accessing higher education, the range of
expectations will undoubtedly increase. However, whilst the formation of student
expectations of higher education are complex and multi-factorial (Lumsden, Mcbryde-
Wilding and Rose 2010) it is argued that the strongest influencing factors are cognitive and
psychological, with socioeconomic differences and types of institution accounting for little
variance in expectations (Kuh, Gonyea and Williams 2005). Despite an absence of
demographic details, the data provided here may prove highly valuable in helping universities
to better understand student needs and the areas of learning that require more detailed
explanation prior to commencement of teaching. This knowledge can be used to further
facilitate an educational approach that prepares and supports school students in becoming
independent learners, who actively engage with their subject area and have the skills to adapt
to new demands and meet new challenges (Lumsden, Mcbryde-Wilding and Rose 2010).
Strong relationships have been demonstrated between student approaches to studying
and perceptions of the learning environment (Entwistle, McCune and Hounsell 2002).
However, Brinkworth et al. (2009) strongly suggest that the progression from secondary to
higher education is problematic and remains fraught with uncertainty. Rather than prompting
a negative appraisal of student abilities, greater understanding of this can offer an opportunity
to set about facilitating the transition. Flexible learning and teaching strategies are crucial
(Lumsden, Mcbryde-Wilding and Rose 2010). Just as students may hold misconceptions, so
universities may make inaccurate assumptions about students’ requirements and awareness
(Pithers and Holland, 2006). Strategies to improve the situation have been put forward. The
importance of university visits both from and to schools in order to further assist in
communication, understanding and information flow has been previously emphasised
(Bedford and O'Brien 2012). Crisp et al. (2009) believe that students would also benefit from
greater discussion of the concept of self-directed learning and evaluation. Surgenor, (2013)
suggests that student confusion over assessments and learning techniques could be reduced
with development of the module descriptor as an information tool.
Assessment and feedback are fundamental to the student learning experience and the
National Student Survey (NSS) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) have identified
both as crucial areas in need of improvement (Jones et al. 2009). Students appear to have
strong opinions about their expectations with regard to feedback, but it comes with very
variable quality (Brown, Harris and Harnett 2012). Developing an understanding of student
perceptions is imperative in order to target the key issues in an effective manner. It is
reported that students with unrealistic perceptions of a learning environment are more likely
to follow a shallow approach to learning (Marton and Saljo 1976). In addition, where the
17
focus is on the application of knowledge, as it is in higher education, rather than merely
reproducing information which is more recognised as a school approach, problems associated
with the transition from one environment to the other can limit student learning outcomes and
success (Lizzio, Wilson and Simons 2002).
Student expectations of learning, teaching and assessment in higher education can
strongly influence levels of student satisfaction, retention and academic success (Crisp et al.
2009). This study shows that students value personal contact with their teachers and expect
this to continue when they move from school to higher education. The stresses and
difficulties associated with the transition from secondary to higher education may be
alleviated by addressing these expectations. Jones et al. (2009) report an intervention where
incoming students were told about differences between school and university assessment and
feedback. Such an intervention can help students understand why university practices may
differ from their expectations and this in turn may help improve student evaluation of
university feedback practices. Universities are therefore advised to use data, such as is
presented in this paper, to let students know that the environment they are entering is aware
of their perceptions of how assessment and feedback is handled in Higher Education. Being
explicit about how university practice differs from these perceptions, and why, should help
students in making the transition to higher education.
It may be possible that one of the reasons for low feedback scores in the NSS may be
because of a mismatch between student expectation and the reality of university systems.
Equipping students with an understanding of how their perceptions may not match the
practices they will experience in higher education, and why this is the case such as large class
sizes, may be the key to helping them make a smooth transition and more positive evaluation
of the feedback practices they encounter. And while there were some differences between
cohorts in this study, key issues such as expecting personal verbal feedback, and expecting a
draft to be commented on before submission, were consistent across the years. Student
expectation of the university feedback and assessment process appears to be entrenched in
our system and requires acting on both before and after they arrive at university.
References
Ball, S. 2013 The Education Debate: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-first Century (2nd Ed)
(Bristol: Policy press).
Baxter, A. & Hatt, S. (2000) Everything must go! Clearing and first year performance,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24 (1), 5-14. DOI:10.1080/030987700112273
Bedford, S. B. & O'Brien, G. (2012) A view of first year transition from Down Under, New
Directions, 8, 53-57.
Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C. & Nordstrom, K. (2009) First year expectations
and experiences: student and teacher perspectives, High Education, 58, 157–173. DOI:
10.1007/s10734-008-9188-3
Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). Students’ adaptation of study strategies
when preparing for classroom tests. Educational Psychology, 19, 401–28. DOI:
10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0
Brown, G. T.L., Harris, L. R. & Harnett, J. (2012) Teacher beliefs about feedback within an
assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-
being, Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 968-978. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.003
19
Browning, C. and Sheffield, S. L. (2008) Practice makes perfect? University students’
response to a first year transition course. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 1, 22–
27
Buswell, J. and Matthews, N. (2004) Feedback on feedback! Encouraging students to read
feedback: a University of Gloucestershire case study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports
and Tourism Education. 3 (1), pp.61-7. DOI: 10.3794/johlste.31.63
Byrne, M. & Flood, B. (2005) A study of accounting students' motives, expectations and
preparedness for higher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29 (2), 111-
124. DOI: 10.1080/03098770500103176
Cook, A. & Leckey, J. (1999) Do Expectations Meet Reality? A survey of changes in first‐
year student opinion, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23 (2), 157-171. DOI:
10.1080/0309877990230201
Crabtree, H., Roberts, C. & Tyler, C. (2007) Understanding the problems of transition into
higher education. Available online at:
http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/35_07.pdf (accessed 4 July 2014)
Crisp, G., Palmer, E., Turnbull, D., Nettelbeck, T. & Ward, L. (2009) First year student
expectations: Results from a university-wide student survey, Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 6 (1), 8-26.
Crook, C., Gross, H. & Dymott, R. (2006) Assessment relationships in higher education: the
tension of process and practice, British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 95-114. DOI:
10.1080/01411920500402037
Daly, A., Baird, J., Chamberlain, S. & Meadows, M. (2012) Assessment reform: students’
and teachers’ responses to the introduction of stretch and challenge at A-level, The
Curriculum Journal, 23 (2), 139-155. DOI: 10.1080/09585176.2012.678683
Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E. & Wyness, G. (2011) The impact of tuition fees and support on
university participation in the UK (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS))
DOI:10.1920/wp.ifs.2011.1117
Department for Education. 2010. The importance of teaching. (London: Department for
Education)
Department for Education and Skills. 2005. 14–19 Education and Skills. (London:
Department for Education and Skills).
Donnelly, M. (2015) Progressing to university: hidden messages at two state schools, British
Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 85-101. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3136
EMBO (2006) From School to University: A Report on the Transition from Secondary School
Biology, (Germany: European Molecular Biology Organization). Available online at:
http://www.anisn.it/matita_allegati/pdf/report%20EMBO%202006.pdf (accessed 12 January
2015).
Entwistle, N., McCune, V. & Hounsell, J. (2002) Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of
University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary Findings
(Edinburgh: ETL Project). Available online at:
http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport1.pdf (accessed 15 January 2015)
21
Fee, H., Greenan, K. and Wall, A. (2009) An investigation into secondary school exit
standards: implications for university lecturers.” International Journal of Management
Education 8 (2): 43-52. DOI: 10.3794/ijme.82.269
Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2003) Measuring the response of students to assessment. Paper
presented at: 11th Improving Student Learning Symposium. Hinckley, England, 1-3
September
Harris, N. and Harris, A. (1995) Doing more with less: improving the quality of the first year
experience on Business undergraduate courses within the context of a diminishing resources
base. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 19 (3), pp.63-73. DOI:
10.1080/0309877950190306
Jessen, A. & Elander, J. (2009) Development and evaluation of an intervention to improve,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33 (4), 359-380. DOI:
10.1080/03098770903272461
Jones, H., Bavage, A., Gilbertson, A., Gorman, M., Lodge, J., Phillips, K. & Yeoman, K.
(2009) Increasing the quality of feedback on assignments while altering student perceptions
of good feedback based on their school experience (York: The Higher Education Academy).
Available online at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/jones_final_report.pdf
(accessed 16 January 2015)
Julien, H. and Barber, S. (2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific
information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library and Information
Science Research, 31, 12–17 DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2008.10.008
Kreber, C. (2003) The Relationship between Students' Course Perception and their
Approaches to Studying in Undergraduate Science Courses: A Canadian experience, Higher
Education Research & Development, 22 (1), 57-75. DOI: 10.1080/0729436032000058623
Kuh, G., Gonyea, R. & Williams, J. (2005) What students expect from college and what they
get. In: T. Miller, B. Bender, & J. Schuh (Eds) Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning
student and institutional thinking about the college experience (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Leese, M. (2010) Bridging the gap: supporting student transitions into higher education,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34 (2), 239 - 251. DOI:
10.1080/03098771003695494
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. & Simons, R. (2002) University Students' Perceptions of the Learning
Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice, Studies in
Higher Education, 27 (1), 27-52. DOI: 10.1080/03075070120099359
Long, M., Ferrier, F. & Heagney, M. (2006) Stay, play or give it away? Students continuing,
changing or leaving university study in their first year (Clayton: Monash University –
ACER). Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505791.pdf (accessed 17 January
2015).
Longden, B. (2006) An Institutional Response to Changing Student Expectations and their
Impact on Retention Rates, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28 (2),
173–187. DOI:10.1080/13600800600751044
Lori, G. (2009) University Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism, The Journal of Higher
Education, 80 (6).
23
Lowe, H. & Cook, A. (2003) Mind the Gap: Are students prepared for Higher Education,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27 (1), 53 - 76. DOI:10.1080/03098770305629
Lumsden, Eunice, Mcbryde-Wilding, Heather & Rose, Hannah (2010) Collaborative practice
in enhancing the first year student experience in Higher Education, Enhancing the Learner
Experience in Higher Education, 2 (1), 12-24.
Marton, F. & Säaljö, R. (1976). Symposium: Learning processes and strategies. On
qualitative differences in learning. II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of
the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-
8279.1976.tb02304
Miller, T. E., Bender, B. E., & Schuh, J. H. (2005). Promoting reasonable expectations:
Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience. Centers for Teaching and
Technology - Book Library. Paper 76.
Mulliner, E. & Tucker, M. (2015). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students
and academics, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-23. DOI:
10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
Owens, C. & White, F. (2013) A 5-year systematic strategy to reduce plagiarism among first-
year psychology university students, Australian Journal of Psychology, 65, 14-21. DOI:
10.1111/ajpy.12005
Owunwanne, D., Rustagi, N. & Dada, R. (2010) Students' Perceptions of Cheating and
Plagiarism in Higher Institutions, Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7 (11), 59-68.
Pithers, B. & Holland, T. (2006). Student Expectations and the Effect of Experience.
Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved
April 13, 2014, from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/pit06290.pdf
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M. & Coates, D. (2000) University Students’ Expectations
of Teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 25 (3), 309-323. DOI:
10.1080/03075070050193433
Slaughter, K. & Bates, S. (2009) Mapping the transition - Content and pedagogy across the
school-university boundary, New Directions, 5, 35-39.
Steele, C. (1992) Race and the schooling of black Americans, in: E. Krupat (Ed.), Psychology
is Social: readings and conversations in social psychology (3rd ed) (New York: Harper
Collins).
Stevenson, K., & Sander, P. (1998). How do Open University Students Expect to be Taught
at Tutorials? Open Learning, 13 (2), 42-46. DOI: 10.1080/0268051980130208
Surgenor, P.W.G. (2013) Measuring up: comparing first year students’ and tutors’
expectations of assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (3), 288-302.
DOI:10.1080/02602938.2011.630976
Trotter, E. & Roberts, C. A. (2006) Enhancing the early student experience, Higher
Education Research & Development, 25, 371-386. DOI: 10.1080/07294360600947368
Wilkins, S., Shams, F. & Huisman, J. (2013) The decision-making and changing behavioural
dynamics of potential higher education students: the impacts of increasing tuition fees in
England, Educational Studies, 39 (2), 125-141. DOI: 10.1080/030556918.2012.681360
25
Williams, J. & Kane, D. (2008) Exploring the National Student Survey: Assessment and
feedback issues (York: The Higher Education Academy).
Wilson F., Child, S. & Suto I. (2016) Assessing the transition between school and university:
Differences in assessment between A level and university in English, Arts & Humanities in
Higher Education, DOI: 10.1177/1474022216628302
Wingate, U. (2007) A framework of transition: supporting ‘learning to learn’ in higher
education, Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 391-405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-
2273.2007.00361.x
Yorke, M. & Longden, B. (2008) The first-year experience of higher education in the UK:
Final report of a project funded by the higher education Academy (York: The Higher
Education Academy). Available online at:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/fyefinalreport_0.pdf (accessed 2 February
2015).
Yorke, M. & Thomas, L. (2003). Improving the Retention of Students from Lower Socio-
economic Groups. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25 (1), 63-74. DOI:
10.1080/13600800305737
Table 1 Percent of students giving each response, combined for the two cohorts, on
perception of verbal feedback
Response
At university how often do
you expect to get:
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
27
Personal verbal feedback
on an essay assignment
19.1 35.9 31.6 12.1 1.4
Verbal feedback to the
whole class on an essay
assignment
16.2 38.3 33.5 10.4 1.6
Personal verbal feedback
on a practical report
15.1 37.8 33.7 11.8 1.6
Verbal feedback to the
whole class on a practical
report.
14.5 38.9 36.1 8.5 2.1
Table 2. Combined cohorts; mean percentage of students ranking each type of feedback in
order of value to them
Percentage of students giving each rank
Type of feedback 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Overall mark 24.4 16.3 25.0 18.5 15.8
Written corrections on
spelling and grammar
2.0 6.6 11.4 25.3 54.7
Written corrections on the
content of the work
34.3 38.1 19.5 6.2 2.0
Written corrections to style
and format of the work
4.7 13.8 25.1 39.4 17.0
Verbal feedback from the
person marking the work
34.5 25.5 19.1 10.7 10.1
Figure legends
Figure 1. Responses to: At school, in science subjects, how often do you get verbal feedback.
Black bars represent the 2006 cohort, grey bars represent the 2013 cohort.
Figure 2. Responses to: At school, in subjects other than science, how often do you get verbal
feedback. Black bars represent the 2006 cohort, grey bars represent the 2013 cohort.
29
Figure 3. Responses to: At school, when essays are marked, I would lose marks if I did not
put material directly from the internet into my own words. Black bars represent the 2006
cohort, grey bars represent the 2013 cohort.
Figure 4. Responses to: At school, in science subjects, how often is a draft commented on
before you hand in a final version. Black bars represent the 2006 cohort, grey bars represent
the 2013 cohort.
Figure 5. Responses to: At university, if an essay is set, how often do you expect a draft to be
commented on before you hand in a final version. Black bars represent the 2006 cohort, grey
bars represent the 2013 cohort.
Figure 6. Combined data for both cohorts comparing responses for school and university to
the question: ‘how often are deadlines strictly adhered to. Black bars represent the response
for school and grey bars represent the response for university.
Figure 7 Responses to: At university, I expect all assignments to be assessed. Black bars
represent the 2006 cohort, grey bars represent the 2013 cohort.
Figure 8 Responses to: I expect the person who sets the assignment to be the person who
marks it. Black bars represent the 2006 cohort, grey bars represent the 2013 cohort.
